Woodson v. State, 883S287PS
| Decision Date | 08 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 883S287PS,883S287PS |
| Citation | 515 N.E.2d 1108 |
| Parties | Raymond L. WOODSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William L. Soards, Soards & Carroll, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant's original conviction for Attempted Murder, Rape, Criminal Deviate Conduct and Attempted Criminal Deviate Conduct and a finding that appellant was an habitual criminal was appealed to this Court and a decision rendered on October 3, 1985. Woodson v. State (1985), Ind., 483 N.E.2d 62.
In affirming appellant's conviction, this Court observed, sua sponte, that the trial court had erred in treating the habitual offender finding as a separate offense and had assessed a separate thirty (30) year sentence therefor. We stated: "[T]his cause is remanded to the trial court, which is instructed to specify the sentence which shall be enhanced by reason of the habitual offender determination." Id. at 64. Upon remand, Judge Barney corrected the sentence by enhancing the criminal deviate conduct sentence by thirty (30) years by reason of the status as an habitual offender. This was in keeping with the instructions of this Court and Ind.Code Sec. 35-50-2-8.
Appellant argues the corrected sentence is improper in that it indicates the trial judge "still considered sentencing the defendant 30 years based upon Count V, the Habitual Offender conviction." We cannot agree with appellant's observations in this regard. The corrected sentence clearly treats the habitual offender finding as a status and enhanced the criminal deviate conviction by thirty (30) years accordingly. We see no error in so doing.
Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in using the same aggravating circumstances not only to enhance the sentences but in addition to impose concurrent sentences. This was a question which could have been but was not raised in the original appeal. By not doing so, the issue is considered waived. Bailey v. State (1985), Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260.
We note that in rendering the instant sentence, Judge Barney observed that Judge Daugherty's reasons for the original sentences were "well taken." The manner in which appellant was sentenced in this case was proper. Chambers v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 1234.
The trial court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durbin v. State
...submission may be shown by evidence other than acts of resistance. Woodson v. State (1985), Ind., 483 N.E.2d 62, 63, appeal after remand 515 N.E.2d 1108. The jury would have been well within its boundaries as the trier of fact to have determined that the only choice K.W. had was between bei......
-
Staton v. State
...in the result. 1 Post-conviction relief is not a substitute for direct appeal. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(b); see also Woodson v. State (1987) Ind., 515 N.E.2d 1108 (issue waived where appellant could have challenged trial court's use of same aggravating factor to impose both enhanced and ......
-
McDandal v. State, 34S00-9106-CR-00516
...additional penalty to be imposed for the habitual offender finding, he may not raise the issue in this subsequent appeal. Woodson v. State (1987), Ind., 515 N.E.2d 1108. The judgment of the trial court is SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and KRAHULIK, JJ., concur. ...